2020 (6) TMI 683

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the second respondent. By the impugned order, it was informed to the petitioner that the Enforcement Wing Officers notified certain defects and estimated visible loss, invisible loss, reversal of ITC for exempted sales during the years from 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 and hence, the balance amount of input tax paid for refund, after reversing and deducting ineligible ITC, is Rs. 1,94,329/-. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing, submitted that the issue involved herein is covered by the decision of this Court in Interfit Techno Products Ltd. v Principal Secretary/ Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai and another [(2015) 81 VST 389 (Madras)], wherein, it ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tured from and out of the goods purchased and to examine as to whether they fall within any of the restrictions contained in Section 19 of the VAT Act. The Assessing Officer has to conduct an exercise by which it is to be ascertained as to whether the representation made by the dealer is justified and is not hit by any any of the restrictions and conditions contained in Section 19 and in particular Section 19(9) of the VAT Act. (4) It is held that the Assessing Authorities are not justified in adopting uniform percentage as invisible loss and calling upon the dealer to reverse the input tax credit availed to that extent. Consequently, all notices issued to the petitioner for reopening and all consequential order passed reversing the input....